This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

Originally Posted by Jerry

I'm not passionate enough to say I'm in favor. I would say I'm indifferent, but in all fairness if someone said they were indifferent to abortion we would call them pro-choice, so if you want to call me pro-polygamy then go right ahead.

Marital status is a protected class, and what's more is polygamy is bonefied religious practice in many places, thus I would say a ban of polygamy is twice as discriminatory as a ban on SSM. That the 'equality' meme doesn't address such relationships demonstrates that SSM is not about equality at all. This is just a wedge issue.

Thanks for your honest answers. I think you are willing to be consistent. I do believe that by accepting alternative definitions of marriage it degrades the concept to an socially unacceptable level, whether that be ssm for some or polygamy for others. Any thing other than one man and one woman marriage opens up an anything goes mentality, otherwise any limits will be arbitrary. Given the push for a change in the social norms regarding marriage I would be for removing the sanction all together. Let partnership agreements be the rule for government and marriage reserved to the church.

"It is only when men contemplate the greatness of God that they can come to realize their own inadequacy." Jean Calvin

Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

Originally Posted by johndylan1

Thanks for your honest answers. I think you are willing to be consistent. I do believe that by accepting alternative definitions of marriage it degrades the concept to an socially unacceptable level, whether that be ssm for some or polygamy for others. Any thing other than one man and one woman marriage opens up an anything goes mentality, otherwise any limits will be arbitrary. Given the push for a change in the social norms regarding marriage I would be for removing the sanction all together. Let partnership agreements be the rule for government and marriage reserved to the church.

See, being 'equal' isn't easy. So no marriage for atheists? Are you saying atheists can't have the same level of reverence and respect for the union as 'believers' might? And what if you're Muslim? Muslims don't attend 'church', and neither do Buddhists. They attend 'temple'. But what about Wiccans? They don't attend any specific building at all; more often than not it's any coven member's living room or a bonfire out in the middle of nowhere.

Do yourself a favor and just leave the word 'marriage' alone. It's not worth the headache.

Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

Originally Posted by Jerry

Erosion of the 10th Amendment. If the Fed wants to weigh in on marriage, hey that's great, and the only proper way is to make a Federal amendment so that marriage comes under Federal governance and is no longer left to the States.

What happened in Loving and is happening with SSM is the Fed is ruling and a right which it has no authority to rule on.

Gay marriage isn't about gays or marriage, its about attacking the Constitution.

So, what we need is a federal marriage amendment defigning what marriage is and protecting fair and equal access to it.

Was interracial marriage also about attacking the Constitution?

We dont need an amendment, we need the states to not allow gender discrimination in (marriage) contracts.

Originally Posted by Bucky

Welfare is a bad thing? It is essentially free money. It is not that bad.

Originally Posted by Bucky

I look at abortion the same way I do Pineapple Pizza.

Originally Posted by applejuicefool

A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

Originally Posted by Jerry

I think you mean that's not how SCOTUS works. I think the average American would be a mixture of impressed and horrified to learn how SCOTUS works. Did you know they figured out a way to extend their authority onto other countries? It's a nice trick, truly.

Policy needs to come from the legislature and the legislature only. We need a marriage amendment defining what marriage is, why the state should be involved at all, and protect fair and equal access to all relationships which are not otherwise harmful. We need the same for abortion. Short of that, a person is abusing the system to feed a wedge issue.

That your cause is just doesn't mean it is not judicial activism.

Without the ability to strike down unconstitutional laws, the SCOTUS would be pretty pointless. And allowing the legislature to have complete control over what is constitutional gives a lot of power to the legislature. I find it laughable how much some people, mainly those who are adamant pro-states' rights over individual rights, want to give so much power to the legislature, any legislature.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

Originally Posted by johndylan1

Thanks for your honest answers. I think you are willing to be consistent. I do believe that by accepting alternative definitions of marriage it degrades the concept to an socially unacceptable level, whether that be ssm for some or polygamy for others. Any thing other than one man and one woman marriage opens up an anything goes mentality, otherwise any limits will be arbitrary. Given the push for a change in the social norms regarding marriage I would be for removing the sanction all together. Let partnership agreements be the rule for government and marriage reserved to the church.

The church does not own marriage. They didn't invent it, despite some beliefs, nor do they hold any kind of copyright on it. It belongs to all of us, not just those who are religious. Marriage is what we call all unions of this certain type, not just those that are religious in nature. Heck, they started out as a private, social arrangement, no religious involvement at all. Even the Christian church didn't involve themselves in marriage in a mandatory manner until around the 10th Century, and then it was only to mandate that people needed to post announcements for their marriages in a town announcement, so that there was some sort of record of the marriage.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

Originally Posted by johndylan1

Thanks for your honest answers. I think you are willing to be consistent. I do believe that by accepting alternative definitions of marriage it degrades the concept to an socially unacceptable level, whether that be ssm for some or polygamy for others. Any thing other than one man and one woman marriage opens up an anything goes mentality, otherwise any limits will be arbitrary. Given the push for a change in the social norms regarding marriage I would be for removing the sanction all together. Let partnership agreements be the rule for government and marriage reserved to the church.

"Degrades the concept." "Attacks the institution." "Undermines moral fabric." Over and over we hear statements like this, but they're always vague. Never anything specific, anything concrete. Never a single, tangible manner in which two men marrying has any impact on your life.

You don't own the word. Atheists get married. Adulterers get married. Buddhists get married. Divorcees get remarried.

Church wants to use a different word? Fine. They can pick a new one. The rest of society has no reason to change.

He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear

Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

Originally Posted by roguenuke

Without the ability to strike down unconstitutional laws, the SCOTUS would be pretty pointless. And allowing the legislature to have complete control over what is constitutional gives a lot of power to the legislature. I find it laughable how much some people, mainly those who are adamant pro-states' rights over individual rights, want to give so much power to the legislature, any legislature.

A SSM ban is not unconstitutional because marriage is not a Constitutional right. It is left to the states to regulate.

The only way for SCOTUS to have proper authority to rule on SSM is to make a marriage amendment.